Food Protection Trends - May/June 2021 - 291

Instrumental and experiential attitudes, self-efficacies,
and intentions
The Cronbach's alpha scores were 0.78 to 0.96, and
the PCA factor loadings were > 0.31, both of which were
within an acceptable range (16). Factor analyses suggested
one factor for each of the scales for all constructs (Tables
1-4). The mean (SD) scores of the 41 participants for
experiential attitude, instrumental attitude, self-efficacy,
and intention were 5.99 (1.08), 6.68 (0.50), 6.43 (0.58),
and 6.63 (0.52), respectively. Approximately 55% of the
variance in participants' food safety intentions was explained
by their instrumental attitudes, experiential attitudes, and
self-efficacies. Typically, factors related to theory of planned
behavior (attitudes, subjective norms, and perceived
behavioral controls) explain 40 to 60% of the variation in
behavioral intentions (3, 13), in agreement with our results.
Instrumental attitude (defined as the belief that performing
best practices in food safety will result in safer food) was a
significant predictor of intentions (P < 0.01; β = 0.619), experiential attitude (defined as an individual's reaction to the
idea of performing best food safety practices) was a marginally significant predictor (P = 0.127; β = 0.202) but self-efficacy was not significant (P = 0.933). Hinsz and Nickell
(17) and Phillip and Anita (29) also reported that attitudes
predicted food safety intentions of workers in their studies at
a poultry processing facility and food handlers in hospitality
settings, respectively. However, undergraduate students'
attitudes did not predict their food safety intentions in two
other studies (24, 33), which may perhaps be explained by an
apparent social desirability bias (28).
Although the predictive effect of attitudes on food safety
intentions appear to be audience dependent, the food
safety intentions of employees of food companies may be
enhanced through cultivating their attitudes. For example,
group leaders (e.g., trainers, manager, and consultants) could
refine their explanations of the effects of certain food safety
practices on the integrity of finished products and eventually
on the consumers.
Self-efficacy was not a significant predictor of intentions in
the present study (P = 0.933). Perceived behavioral control,
which is conceptually similar to the self-efficacy construct
measured in the present study but often assessed differently,
was a significant predictor of food safety intentions in Phillip
and Anita's (29) study. However, Hinsz and Nickell (17)
reported the opposite. Mullan and Wong (24) reported
that perceived behavioral control was a significant predictor
of college students' food safety intentions, but in contrast
Stevenson et al. (33) reported that perceived behavioral
control was a significant predictor of college students'
intentions only after a food safety educational intervention
and not before. These results corroborate an observation
from a meta-analysis of behavioral studies that perceived
behavioral control irregularly predicts intentions (3).
Whereas perceived behavioral control added an average of

6% to the prediction of intentions control, it more commonly
directly influenced behaviors (3).
An experimental regression model that also included age,
years of experiences, and gender of the participants revealed
that none of these factors were significant predictors of
intentions (data not shown).
CONCLUSIONS
A collaborative and systematic approach to designing an
online food safety course for artisan cheesemakers resulted
in participants being very satisfied with their learning experiences. Whereas participants' total self-reported retrospective knowledge gains were not statistically significant, if the
methodology had instead assessed knowledge before and
after the course there might have been a significant increase
in actual knowledge. The course did generate many positive
testimonials and verbatim comments, indicating that it was
a valuable resource for artisan cheesemakers, and 22% of
participants reported that they changed or updated their
food safety practices and/or programs related to GMPs in
their facility as a result of the course. Participants' instrumental attitudes but not their self-efficacies were significant
predictors of their intentions to improve their food safety
practices. Therefore, the impacts of food safety training
and outreach efforts directed at the artisan cheesemaking
community may be improved by specifically supporting
participants' instrumental attitudes (defined as their beliefs
about the results of performing food safety practices). The
collaborative and instructional design-focused approach to
delivering food safety education to a target audience in this
study may serve as a model for similar initiatives.
LIMITATIONS
An estimated 1,000 artisans are making cheese in the United
States. Therefore, the sample sizes in this study, depending
on the instrument being evaluated, were relatively small: 128
participants provided their reactions to the course; 66 provided
information on retrospective self-reported knowledge gains;
47 provided demographic information; 41 provided answers
to questions about attitudes, intentions, and self-efficacy; and
16 responded to the 1-month follow-up, self-reported food
safety practices survey. Because participation in the course was
voluntary, the findings in this study may be skewed toward
participants who are more eager to improve their food safety
programs and/or to provide results that please the researchers
(acquiescence bias). Another potential source of bias was course
development and program evaluation conducted by persons in
the same program. The study results were based on self-reported
data collected through an online survey and could have been
validated by addition of observational data.
ACKNOWLEDGMENT
This online course was offered through support of the
Innovation Center for U.S. Dairy (www.usdairy.com/foodsafety).

May/June Food Protection Trends

291

http://www.usdairy.com/foodsafety

Food Protection Trends - May/June 2021

Table of Contents for the Digital Edition of Food Protection Trends - May/June 2021